Metal artifact reduction tool and mA levels impact on the diagnosis of fracture extension in endodontically treated teeth using cone-beam CT
- PMID: 39298025
- DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-05945-3
Metal artifact reduction tool and mA levels impact on the diagnosis of fracture extension in endodontically treated teeth using cone-beam CT
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the influence of different levels of metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool and milliamperage (mA) on the diagnosis of fracture extension in endodontically treated teeth using cone beam CT (CBCT).
Materials and methods: Ten maxillary premolars were endodontically treated and positioned in the empty sockets of a human maxilla covered with wax. CBCT acquisitions were performed using the Eagle Edge device (Dabi Atlante, Brazil) adjusted to 120 kVp, FOV of 4 × 6 cm, exposure time of 24 s and voxel size of 0.2 mm in 8 different conditions with different MAR (1, 2 and 3) and mA (3.2 and 6.3) levels. Crown-root fractures were simulated in the universal testing machine, and CBCT images were acquired again. Five radiologists evaluated the presence and extension of fractures with a 5-point scale. Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance, Tukey and Kappa test (α = 0.05).
Results: Although different mA levels did not significantly (p > 0.05) affect the diagnosis values for fracture presence and extension, when evaluated the different levels of MAR, AUC and sensitivity showed significantly higher values (p < 0.05) for MAR 0 using 6.3 mA and kappa agreement showed significantly higher values (p < 0.05) for MAR 0 and 2 using 6.3 mA.
Conclusions: Although mA levels do not have a diagnostic effect when isolating the MAR level; in 6.3 mA, MAR 0 and 2 can positively influence the diagnosis of fracture extension in endodontically treated teeth using CBCT.
Clinical relevance: The isolate evaluation of dental fracture presence can overlook diagnostics error of its extension.
Keywords: Artifacts; Cone beam computed tomography; Endodontics; Imaging diagnosis; Tooth fracture.
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Soliman S, Lang LM, Hahn B, Reich S, Schlagenhauf U, Krastl G et al (2020) Long-term outcome of adhesive fragment reattachment in crown-root fractured teeth. Dent Traumatol 36:417–426
-
- Rezende FMC, Gaujac C, Rocha AC, de Melo Peres MPS (2007) A prospective study of dentoalveolar trauma at the Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo University Medical School. Clinics 62:133–138
-
- Padbury A, Eber R, Wang HL (2003) Interactions between the gingiva and the margin of restorations. J Clin Periodontol 30:379–385
-
- Andreasen FM, Andreasen JO, Tsilingaridis G (2018) Root fractures. In: Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM, Andersson L (eds) Textbook and Colour Atlas of Traumatic Injuries to the Teeth, vol 5. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, pp 377–412
-
- Khasnis SA, Kidiyoor KH, Patil AB, Kenganal SB (2014) Vertical root fractures and their management. J Conserv Dent 17:103–110 - PMC
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources